CDM applies so regardless of the size of the contractors involved, the principal contractor is obliged to create a construction phase plan for H&S. If no principal contractor has been appointed this duty defaults back to the client.

The visitors are the property developers, not the contractors. So I would expect the property developer to have some form of agreement with the contractors; - if visitors turn up let them in/don't let them in/make them read and sign this/call me and make them wait/etc.

James, the visitors I am thinking of are HSE Inspector, Site H&S Inspector, maybe even the FRS. There will be control of visitors.

Besides the requirement for a construction phase plan, I would argue that even though each person is a sole trader with no employees, their work processes will more than than likely be affecting more than 5 persons on site as a collective. On that basis I think RA's should be provided.

I remember I submitted a case to the PF where a company director removed asbestos from one of his properties (a former Woolworths store), assisted by self employed friend. His company existed only to own commercial properties, and the directors did not have agreements in place, so were not employees in a legal sense. All 'work' relating to the management of the properties was taken care of by sub contracted property mangement company on their behalf. It was a hugely complicated case from legal point of view to prove who had breached a duty they held (very simple case factually!) Not helped by the difficulties in corroborating evidence etc. In the end the PF brought charge (For the first time in legal history I believe) against a company with a common law offence of reckless and culpable behaviour for exposing its director and another person to asbestos. It was changed by the PF to charge the company but as there are no employees there could be no health and safety charge. PF decided to use a decision following the Tranco explosion in Larkhall to allow companies to be charged with common law offences. The director (I Understand) preferred this to a charge against him as an individual. I can't recall all the details now, but it was hard work, and took long time to go through the courts! Al

There are very specific definitions of 'employer', 'employee' , and - quite relevant - the concept of 'undertaking'. Volunteers BTW are 'other people' and not legally employees - s3 v s2) Section 53 (1) HSWA contains the following definitions: "employee" -is "an individual who works under a contract of employment. "self-employed person" is "an individual who works for gain or reward otherwise than under a contract of employment, whether or not he himself employs others"; If there are less than 5 employees, HASAWA is clear. Whether that might not be 'best' in principle does not change the legal situation of 'no need to record' at that level. It is worth looking at HSE pages http://www.hse.gov.uk/en...sc/identifying/index.htm to see the definitions and differences for enforcement purposes. This includes sub-contracted labour, agency and other workers - too much to go into here. There is no specific definition from HSAWA or HSE pages of 'business' but HMRC do have a take on this, and it is probably more definitive that the 'gain or reward' above. HMRC talk about 'active trading' and invoicing, as example evidence of trading, and a summary is given here relating to tax law. Trade". The term is “commonly used to denote operations of a commercial character by which the trader provides to customers for reward some kind of goods or services" as opposed to investment activities. Business is defined more broadly than trade. Whilst a trade is a business, not all businesses are trades. To quote Lord Diplock “the word “business” is an etymological chameleon; it suits its meaning to the context in which it is found”.